Is there a standard CJC-1295 ipamorelin dosage?

No. No published human trial has tested the two peptides together as a fixed combination, so there is no standard dose for the pair and no regulator has set one. Every honest figure comes from one compound studied on its own: CJC-1295 in ascending-dose trials in healthy adults aged 21 to 61 (Teichman et al., JCEM 2006, PMID 16352683) and at 60 or 90 mcg/kg in healthy men aged 20 to 40 (Ionescu and Frohman, JCEM 2006, PMID 17018654), and ipamorelin in a human dose-escalation study reporting five infusion rates from 4.21 to 140.45 nmol/kg (Gobburu et al., Pharm Res 1999, PMID 10496658) alongside animal ED50 values in that same unit (Raun et al., Eur J Endocrinol 1998, PMID 9849822). A precise blend protocol presented as settled science is going past the published record.

Is CJC-1295 with DAC dosed differently?

In the published research the two forms are not interchangeable, and the reason is pharmacokinetic rather than a matter of preference. The form studied in humans carries a drug affinity complex that binds permanently to circulating albumin after injection, which is what produced an estimated half-life of 5.8 to 8.1 days (Teichman et al., JCEM 2006, PMID 16352683) and a reported half-life of about 8 days (Ionescu and Frohman, JCEM 2006, PMID 17018654). That is why the second Teichman trial dosed weekly or biweekly rather than daily, and why the Ionescu trial could sample a full week after one injection and still see an effect. Strip the albumin-binding complex out and you are left with a short-acting GHRH fragment that does not carry that extension, so a schedule copied from the long-acting trials would not transfer to it. There is no published human dose-finding trial of the non-DAC form, which is the honest limit of what can be said here. This describes what the trials did. It is not a schedule for anyone to follow.

What do CJC-1295 before and after results show in research?

Nothing, because no published CJC-1295 or ipamorelin trial measured a before-and-after change in body composition. The trials measured hormones. For contrast, studies that did measure body composition in this drug class used imaging and a placebo arm: a GHRH analog trial in 412 patients used CT to track visceral adipose tissue over 26 weeks and reported a 15.2 percent decrease against a 5.0 percent increase on placebo (Falutz et al., NEJM 2007, PMID 18057338), and a two-year trial of an oral ghrelin mimetic in 65 adults aged 60 to 81 reported fat-free mass over 12 months rising 1.1 kg against a 0.5 kg fall on placebo, with no significant difference in abdominal visceral fat or total fat mass and no change in strength or function (Nass et al., Ann Intern Med 2008, PMID 18981485). That is what a measured before and after looks like, and it is not what a photograph is.

Why is ipamorelin reported in nmol/kg instead of micrograms?

Because nanomoles per kilogram is a molar unit, and it is the unit both the animal potency work and the human study used. Raun et al. characterized ipamorelin by ED50, the dose producing half of the maximum GH response, in anaesthetised rats and conscious swine, and reported it in nanomoles per kilogram because that is the unit a potency comparison against other secretagogues is made in (Eur J Endocrinol 1998, PMID 9849822). The human pharmacokinetic study reported its five infusion rates the same way, from 4.21 to 140.45 nmol/kg (Gobburu et al., Pharm Res 1999, PMID 10496658). An ED50 measured in swine is a property of the molecule, not an instruction for a person, and converting either figure into a human microgram number requires assumptions neither paper made.

Are CJC-1295 and ipamorelin approved drugs?

No. Neither is an approved medicine, and both are named on the FDA page covering bulk drug substances that may present significant safety risks in compounding, though in two different tables. Ipamorelin acetate is in the current category 2 table, marked 503B and added 29 September 2023, where the agency notes immunogenicity risk, unnatural amino acids that complicate characterization, and a published report of serious adverse events including death when ipamorelin was given intravenously for gastric motility. CJC-1295 is in the second table, which the FDA describes as substances previously in category 2 whose nominations were withdrawn by the nominators; the recorded concerns there are immunogenicity by certain routes, serious adverse events including increased heart rate and systemic vasodilatory reaction, and limited available clinical data (FDA, Certain Bulk Drug Substances for Use in Compounding That May Present Significant Safety Risks, read 29 August 2026).

Research reference

CJC-1295 Ipamorelin Dosage: What the Research Reports

Q: What did the CJC-1295 human trials actually measure?

Blood hormone concentrations and tolerability, not body composition. Teichman et al. measured peak concentrations and area under the curve for GH and IGF-1 across two randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind ascending-dose trials lasting 28 and 49 days, and reported the compound as safe and relatively well tolerated, particularly at 30 or 60 mcg/kg (JCEM 2006, PMID 16352683). Ionescu and Frohman sampled blood every 20 minutes over a 12-hour overnight window to see whether GH pulsatility survived continuous stimulation, and found that it did (JCEM 2006, PMID 17018654). Neither trial weighed anyone, scanned anyone, or measured fat or muscle.

The short answer

There is no established dosage for the blend, because no published human trial has ever tested CJC-1295 and ipamorelin together. What exists is one compound at a time. CJC-1295 was given subcutaneously to healthy adults across two trials, as one of four ascending single doses in the first and as two or three weekly or biweekly doses in the second, and was reported as safe and relatively well tolerated, particularly at 30 or 60 mcg/kg (Teichman et al., JCEM 2006, PMID 16352683). A second trial used single doses of 60 or 90 mcg/kg (Ionescu and Frohman, JCEM 2006, PMID 17018654). Ipamorelin has been given to healthy male volunteers in a dose-escalation study, as five 15-minute infusion rates from 4.21 to 140.45 nmol/kg with eight subjects at each level (Gobburu et al., Pharm Res 1999, PMID 10496658); its other widely quoted figures are animal ED50 values reported in the same unit (Raun et al., Eur J Endocrinol 1998, PMID 9849822). Those are protocols the studies ran on their own subjects, reported here as what the literature says. Nothing on this page is a dose for anyone to take.

General educational information, research-use framing only, not medical advice. Neither compound is an approved medicine, and any decision about a research compound belongs with a qualified clinician.

What the research reports

Two kinds of data sit behind this question and mixing them up is the most common error online. CJC-1295 has human trials that dosed in micrograms per kilogram of body weight. Ipamorelin has an animal pharmacology paper that reports potency as an ED50 in nanomoles per kilogram. An ED50 is not a dose, the units are not interchangeable, and no study combined the two compounds. The Model column below is where that distinction lives.

Compound	Model	Protocol the study ran	What it measured	Source
CJC-1295 (albumin-binding form)	Healthy adults, ages 21 to 61	Subcutaneous, one of four ascending single doses in the first trial, then two or three weekly or biweekly doses in the second	Mean plasma GH rose 2 to 10 fold for 6 days or more; mean plasma IGF-1 rose 1.5 to 3 fold for 9 to 11 days; estimated half-life 5.8 to 8.1 days	Teichman et al., JCEM 2006, PMID 16352683
CJC-1295 (albumin-binding form)	Healthy men, ages 20 to 40	Single injection of either 60 or 90 mcg/kg	Trough GH up 7.5 fold, mean GH up 46 percent, IGF-1 up 45 percent, GH pulse frequency and magnitude unchanged; no significant difference between the two doses	Ionescu and Frohman, JCEM 2006, PMID 17018654
Ipamorelin	Anaesthetised rats and conscious swine (animal pharmacology)	Dose-response assay reporting ED50, the dose producing half the maximum GH response, in nmol/kg	ED50 80 plus or minus 42 nmol/kg in rats and 2.3 plus or minus 0.03 nmol/kg in swine; no ACTH or cortisol rise beyond that seen with GHRH, even above 200 times the GH ED50	Raun et al., Eur J Endocrinol 1998, PMID 9849822
Ipamorelin	Healthy male volunteers, eight at each dose level	Dose escalation, five infusion rates of 4.21, 14.02, 42.13, 84.27 and 140.45 nmol/kg given over 15 minutes	Dose-proportional pharmacokinetics, terminal half-life about 2 hours, a single episode of GH release peaking near 0.67 hours, and an SC50 of 214 nmol/L for half-maximal GH stimulation	Gobburu et al., Pharm Res 1999, PMID 10496658

Two things the table makes plain. The CJC-1295 figures are per kilogram of body weight, so a single fixed microgram number does not describe how either trial was run. The ipamorelin ED50 row is animal potency work, which measures how potent the molecule is rather than how much of it a person was given, while the infusion rates in the row below it are what one human pharmacokinetic study administered to its own volunteers. Micrograms and nanomoles also only become a syringe reading once a peptide is dissolved in a known volume, which is arithmetic rather than dosing: a U-100 syringe reads 100 units per mL, so the same vial gives completely different unit numbers depending on how much water went in. The peptide reconstitution calculator runs that conversion for any vial strength and any volume you enter.

DAC and no DAC are not the same compound

This is the distinction that decides everything else on the page, and it is the one most often skipped. DAC stands for drug affinity complex. It is a chemical group attached to the peptide whose only job is to bind albumin, the most abundant protein in blood, so the molecule stays in circulation instead of clearing in minutes.

With DAC

The form the human trials used

Ionescu and Frohman describe the analog as binding permanently to endogenous albumin after injection, with a half-life of 8 days (JCEM 2006, PMID 17018654). Teichman et al. estimated 5.8 to 8.1 days, and reported that a single injection raised mean GH 2 to 10 fold for 6 days or more and IGF-1 1.5 to 3 fold for 9 to 11 days, with IGF-1 staying above baseline for up to 28 days after repeat dosing (JCEM 2006, PMID 16352683). That is why the repeat-dose arm of that trial ran weekly or biweekly rather than daily. Every human CJC-1295 figure quoted anywhere on this page comes from this form.

Without DAC

A short-acting fragment with no dose-finding trial

Remove the albumin-binding complex and the albumin binding goes with it, so the multi-day persistence that defines the trial data is simply not there. What remains is a short-acting GHRH-type peptide. We have not found a published human dose-finding trial of the non-DAC form, so there is no protocol to report for it and no basis for carrying the weekly schedule across. Anyone quoting a precise non-DAC protocol as research-backed is quoting something other than the published record.

The practical consequence is that a source discussing CJC-1295 without naming the form is not a usable source, because the same name covers two molecules with different pharmacokinetics. Ipamorelin sits outside this split entirely: it is a short-acting pentapeptide that acts through a GHRP-like receptor rather than the GHRH receptor (Raun et al., Eur J Endocrinol 1998, PMID 9849822), which is why the two are discussed side by side even though no published study combined them. For the pharmacokinetics on their own, see the half-life breakdown, and for what Peptara publishes about the blend it sells, including batch certificates, see the CJC-1295 / Ipamorelin product page.

What CJC-1295 before and after actually tracks in studies

Searches for before-and-after results expect photographs. The published record has none, and the reason is worth stating precisely: the CJC-1295 trials never measured body composition. Teichman et al. measured peak concentrations and area under the curve for GH and IGF-1 (JCEM 2006, PMID 16352683). Ionescu and Frohman measured GH pulse frequency, trough and mean GH, and IGF-1 across an overnight sampling window (JCEM 2006, PMID 17018654). No scan, no scale, no photograph. So the honest answer to what CJC-1295 before and after shows is that the trials did not look.

That is not the same as saying nothing in this drug class has ever been measured properly. Two trials on related GH-axis compounds show what a real before-and-after endpoint looks like, and both are instructive precisely because they are unflattering.

Imaging, a control arm, and a percentage

A GHRH-analog trial randomized 412 patients to a daily subcutaneous injection or placebo for 26 weeks, with the primary endpoint being percent change from baseline in visceral adipose tissue on computed tomography. Visceral adipose tissue fell 15.2 percent on the active arm and rose 5.0 percent on placebo, and IGF-1 rose 81.0 percent (Falutz et al., NEJM 2007, PMID 18057338). The number means something because a scanner produced it and a placebo group sat beside it.

And what careful measurement often finds

A two-year randomized trial of an oral ghrelin mimetic in 65 healthy adults aged 60 to 81 measured fat-free mass and abdominal visceral fat as its primary endpoints at 12 months. Fat-free mass rose 1.1 kg on the active arm against a 0.5 kg fall on placebo. But there was no significant difference in abdominal visceral fat or total fat mass, body weight rose 2.7 kg, fasting glucose rose and insulin sensitivity fell, and the authors recorded that the increased fat-free mass did not translate into any change in strength or function (Nass et al., Ann Intern Med 2008, PMID 18981485).

That last finding is the whole point. A GH secretagogue moved a body-composition number in the expected direction and the people taking it were not measurably stronger. A before-and-after photograph cannot distinguish 1.1 kg of fat-free mass from water retention, a different camera angle, or twelve months of training, which is why the trials that wanted an answer used scanners and control groups instead.

Where both compounds stand with the FDA

Neither is an approved drug. Both are named on the FDA page covering bulk drug substances that may present significant safety risks in compounding, but they sit in two different tables on it and the difference is worth stating exactly.

Ipamorelin acetate is in the current category 2 table, marked 503B, added 29 September 2023. The agency records immunogenicity risk from aggregation or peptide-related impurities, unnatural amino acids that complicate characterization, and a study in the literature reporting serious adverse events including death when ipamorelin was administered intravenously to improve gastric motility.

CJC-1295 is in the second table, which the FDA describes as substances previously in category 2 of the interim policies whose nominations were withdrawn by the nominators. The agency's recorded concerns still stand against it there: that compounded drugs containing CJC-1295 may pose a risk for immunogenicity by certain routes of administration, that it has identified serious adverse events including increased heart rate and systemic vasodilatory reaction, and that available clinical data are limited. So the accurate statement is that the FDA documented those concerns and the nomination was later withdrawn, not that CJC-1295 sits on a current category 2 list. Both entries were read directly from the FDA page on 29 August 2026.

This matters for reading the rest of the page correctly. Research-reported hormone responses and a regulator flagging safety questions are both true at once, and neither cancels the other out. See are peptides legal for how research-use status works more broadly.

Keep reading

The pharmacology, the product, and the arithmetic

CJC-1295 / Ipamorelin

The product page: vial strength, certificates of analysis, and what ships.

Peptide reconstitution calculator

Turn a vial strength and a water volume into mg/mL and U-100 units.

CJC-1295 / Ipamorelin half-life

How long each peptide persists, and why the two differ so sharply.

CJC-1295 / Ipamorelin side effects

Reported effects and what the studies actually recorded.

CJC-1295 vs Ipamorelin

The two halves of the blend, compared on mechanism.

Growth hormone peptides explained

How the GH axis is targeted, and by which class of compound.

CJC-1295 ipamorelin dosage: FAQ

References

Teichman SL, Neale A, Lawrence B, Gagnon C, Castaigne JP, Frohman LA. "Prolonged stimulation of growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor I secretion by CJC-1295, a long-acting analog of GH-releasing hormone, in healthy adults." Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2006;91(3):799-805. PMID: 16352683.
Ionescu M, Frohman LA. "Pulsatile secretion of growth hormone (GH) persists during continuous stimulation by CJC-1295, a long-acting GH-releasing hormone analog." Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2006;91(12):4792-4797. PMID: 17018654. doi:10.1210/jc.2006-1702.
Raun K, Hansen BS, Johansen NL, Thogersen H, Madsen K, Ankersen M, Andersen PH. "Ipamorelin, the first selective growth hormone secretagogue." European Journal of Endocrinology. 1998;139(5):552-561. PMID: 9849822.
Gobburu JV, Agerso H, Jusko WJ, Ynddal L. "Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of ipamorelin, a growth hormone releasing peptide, in human volunteers." Pharmaceutical Research. 1999;16(9):1412-1416. PMID: 10496658.
Falutz J, Allas S, Blot K, Potvin D, Kotler D, Somero M, et al. "Metabolic effects of a growth hormone-releasing factor in patients with HIV." New England Journal of Medicine. 2007;357(23):2359-2370. PMID: 18057338.
Nass R, Pezzoli SS, Oliveri MC, Patrie JT, Harrell FE, Clasey JL, et al. "Effects of an oral ghrelin mimetic on body composition and clinical outcomes in healthy older adults: a randomized trial." Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008;149(9):601-611. PMID: 18981485.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "Certain Bulk Drug Substances for Use in Compounding That May Present Significant Safety Risks." https://www.fda.gov/drugs/human-drug-compounding/certain-bulk-drug-substances-use-compounding-may-present-significant-safety-risks

General educational information only, research-use framing, not medical advice. Every figure above is a protocol a named study administered to its own subjects, reported as such. None of it is a recommendation. Consult a qualified professional before acting.